I know this is a place where its fashionable to be anti-Revival. It isn't just necessary to be anti revival you have to be anti EVERYTHING revival, even when that makes no sense. There are plenty of churches believing in baptism by full immersion and that is ok, but the revivalists are wrong because they believe in baptism by full immersion. There are plenty of churches critical of Roman Catholic doctrines (the Seventh Day Adventists for example) and that is ok, but the revivalists are wrong because they are critical of the Catholics. The list could go on and on and on. This obviously isn't about logic.

As we all know there are many churches around, all with different doctrines and the respective experts came to their different conclusions logically after their own careful thought and deliberation. Logic does have its limitations. I think some of the value of this forum is that people can express their feelings and let off steam without necessarily having to justify every word.

Good morning, Willem.

I know this is a place where its fashionable to be anti-Revival. It isn't just necessary to be anti revival you have to be anti EVERYTHING revival, even when that makes no sense. I think such is quite the overstatement, which I'll demonstrate presently. There are plenty of churches believing in baptism by full immersion and that is ok, but the revivalists are wrong because they believe in baptism by full immersion. 'No', Revivalists are wrong because they make baptism (by full immersion) a salvation requirement. Not even the Baptists do so, by the way. There are plenty of churches critical of Roman Catholic doctrines (the Seventh Day Adventists for example) and that is ok, but the revivalists are wrong because they are critical of the Catholics. 'No', Revivalists are wrong in that they teach the Roman Catholic Church isn't Christian; further, that the Catholic Pontiff is the embodiment of the Antichrist of John's Apocalypse. Not even the Lutherans believe this, by the way. Being critical of certain theologies and/or practices isn't necessarily a bad thing, excepting when the person being critical is in the habit of making ignorant, ill-informed and unfounded accusations. Critique often leads to dialogue, but for this to be productive the criticism must be informed of the facts. What issues forth from the various Revivalist sects fails to meet this necessary standard. The list could go on and on and on. This obviously isn't about logic. If your response is any indication, it clearly isn't about 'truth' either.

As we all know there are many churches around, all with different doctrines and the respective experts came to their different conclusions logically after their own careful thought and deliberation. I think you overstate the degree of difference. For example, what sets the overwhelming majority of Christian churches apart from Revivalism is that the former all understand, and agree upon, what salvation by grace involves; whilst the latter clearly doesn't. The various denominational distinctives (the so-called adiaphora) simply prove that the Christian Church achieves unity through diversity. Logic does have its limitations. You've used the term 'logic' a few times now, and yet I have the distinct impression that you don't properly understand what's implied by the word. The issue under discussion isn't a matter of 'logic', but of fidelity to God's Word. But by either standard Revivalism fails the test. I think some of the value of this forum is that people can express their feelings and let off steam without necessarily having to justify every word. Agreed. Another value of this forum is that when people do ignorantly make outlandish statements about this or that, those of us who are much better informed of the facts can rebut such nonsense, to everyone's benefit :)

Blessings,

Ian 

Hello, Grits.

I know this is a place where its fashionable to be anti-Revival and that pro-Revival people aren't often treated with the respect they would like, but after a lot of thought I'd decided to dip my oar and provide another perspective here. Oh, I don't know. I think the height of 'fashion' here is to be able to discuss a matter objectively and factually, rather than emotively and viscerally. I also believe the pro-Revivalists are personally treated with the same level of respect with which they treat others. Their doctrinal opinions, on the other hand, probably receive the degree of respect that they deserve ;)

I repented, was baptised and received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues almost 30 years ago and I've been a member of a Revival group ever since (I've chosen not to say which one). For my own part, I repented of my sin and rejection of Christ and subsequently received the Holy Spirit without speaking in 'tongues' 26 years ago (the 'tongues' and Revivalist bit happened two days later). My life has had its share of ups and downs but there have been more ups than downs so I'm fairly content. Me too. I believe in the Acts 2:38 doctrine with all my heart and I don't worry a great deal about the less important teachings (such as British Israel). I believe in Acts 2:38 with all my heart too, it's just that I believe Revivalism has completely failed to grasp what the passage properly teaches. As for the other, 'signature' Revivalist doctrines, I've no time for extra-biblical, a-historical fables.

Like a lot of people I've read Ian's essays. Yet another thing we hold common! With some friends of mine I've considered them in detail over the years and my conclusion is I don't believe they're as watertight as many people think. Fair enough. They're certainly cleverly written and impressive but I don't think they're as devastating to Revivalist doctrine as is often believed. Okay. While I respect Ian's intelligence and learning that doesn't mean I automatically accept his conclusions. I think they're quite flawed. And I'd certainly welcome you pointing out where, why and how you believe my conclusions with respect to your preferred brand of heresy are flawed :)

I look forward to contributing some opinions as time permits. And I very much look forward to reading, and no doubt then responding to, them.

Blessings,

Ian

It isn't just necessary to be anti revival you have to be anti EVERYTHING revival, even when that makes no sense. I think such is quite the overstatement, yes of course its an overstatement. It is the subjective impression I get looking at many of the posts that many things are regarded as wrong because they are associated with revival even though they are present in other churches, and I also get the impression that in general other churches are regarded as above reproach. If I may continue with the overstatements I don't think there is any teaching in revival churches that is unique and not present in some other church. I have even heard on early morning religious programming some group promoting BI, although it was slanted towards America so perhaps it should be called AI!

'No', Revivalists are wrong because they make baptism (by full immersion) a salvation requirement. Not even the Baptists do so, by the way The Baptist churches seem to come in many different flavors. I have even been to one Baptist church where not only did they believe in full immersion baptism but their salvation doctrine was exactly the same as revival doctrine regarding tongues and the Holy Spirit.

'No', Revivalists are wrong in that they teach the Roman Catholic Church isn't Christian; further, that the Catholic Pontiff is the embodiment of the Antichrist of John's Apocalypse. Not even the Lutherans believe this, by the way.  This is a fairly common belief and I have heard it in Presbyterian churches among others. The SDA make revival seem very tame in their comments.

I think you overstate the degree of difference. For example, what sets the overwhelming majority of Christian churches With respect I think this might be wishful thinking on your part.

Another value of this forum is that when people do ignorantly make outlandish statements about this or that, those of us who are much better informed of the facts can rebut such nonsense, to everyone's benefit I hope you are now a bit better informed

 Yo Willem

Have you noticed that this is a forum that deals with "Revival Churches"? That fact somewhat explains why posts here deal with "Revival Churches" :-P

As someone currently fellowshipping at a Baptist-union church and knowing a little of their history wrt Pentcostalism over the last few decades I'm quite interested in your 2nd paragraph of post 4#. Can you give us a website address for the "Baptist" church you mention?

As an aside you should note that since they are congregationalist and may not be members of the local union, the views of one church may not be aligned with those of the vast majority or even their local union, e.g. the whackos who picket funerals of US servicemen because the US government allows open homosexuals to serve.

Have you noticed that this is a forum that deals with "Revival Churches"? Good point.

Can you give us a website address for the "Baptist" church you mention? I came across that church in the UK when travelling some time ago. I haven't been in contact since.

the views of one church may not be aligned with those of the vast majority or even their local union Yes. and other baptist friends thought full immersion was unnecessary. My only point was that there were differences of opinion between various churches, and even within churches. Baptism is just one example of that.

Good morning, Willem.

It isn't just necessary to be anti revival you have to be anti EVERYTHING revival, even when that makes no sense. I think such is quite the overstatement ... yes of course its an overstatement. It is the subjective impression I get looking at many of the posts that many things are regarded as wrong because they are associated with revival even though they are present in other churches, and I also get the impression that in general other churches are regarded as above reproach. I don't think you properly understood my critique. This is a forum that intentionally and specifically addresses the errors of Revivalism. Consequently, the discussion here is going to centre on Revivalist misbelief rather than on the doctrinal musings of other organisations. Another critical feature that separates Revivalism from orthodox Christianity, one which you've apparently missed, is that the latter takes what the former considers adiaphora to recast them as central or 'core' beliefs. Ipso facto I believe your 'subjective impression' is largely mistaken and poorly informed :)

If I may continue with the overstatements I don't think there is any teaching in revival churches that is unique and not present in some other church. I have even heard on early morning religious programming some group promoting BI, although it was slanted towards America so perhaps it should be called AI! The false gospel of Revivalism is taught as doctrine by only one other organised denomination that I'm aware of, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). I've no doubt that there are other fellowships that probably teach the same rubbish. No doubt these sects are descended from the UPC, or as we've seen on this forum, from Revivalism itself.

Let's now briefly review some of the quirky 'signtaure' fables that one ordinarily associates with Longieldianism. It's interesting to note the sorts of spiritual company that Revivalism implicitly keeps:

The 'British Israel' faerytale was formerly taught by Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, and during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (later known as the Jehovah's Witnesses). The JW's also taught the Pyramid nonsense that I list below during the same period, and still adopts a very similar apocalyptic schema to Revivalism involving the books of Daniel and Revelation. 'Bible Numerics' pops up every now again among ignorant apocalyptic groups (in one guise or another), but it's never really caught on as anything but a fringe-dweller's fad. Consequently, the only organised denominations that teach as doctrine: (1) that one must repent, be baptised by complete immersion in water and receive the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues; (2) that the modern Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations are the lost tribes of Israel; (3) that the Pyramid represents the Bible/endtime chronology 'in stone'; and (4) that Christian Scripture can be proven by 'mathematical' patterns; are those whacky yet wonderful groups that draw their doctrinal legacies from the musings a delicatessen owner named Lloyd Longfield. Orthodox, historic Christianity knows nothing of such delusion :)

'No', Revivalists are wrong because they make baptism (by full immersion) a salvation requirement. Not even the Baptists do so, by the way ... The Baptist churches seem to come in many different flavors. I have even been to one Baptist church where not only did they believe in full immersion baptism but their salvation doctrine was exactly the same as revival doctrine regarding tongues and the Holy Spirit. I seriously doubt it. To be a Baptist church requires a group to draw their ecclesial polity and theology from the non-conformist wing of the English Reformation. The tenets of the Baptist movement are: (1) a congregational form of church government, (2) formalised membership entered into via credo-baptism, and (3) an evangelical understanding of salvation by God's grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone. If you encountered a group that followed the '1-2-3' heresy of Revivalism, then it wasn't Baptist, regardless of what they called themselves.

'No', Revivalists are wrong in that they teach the Roman Catholic Church isn't Christian; further, that the Catholic Pontiff is the embodiment of the Antichrist of John's Apocalypse. Not even the Lutherans believe this, by the way. This is a fairly common belief and I have heard it in Presbyterian churches among others. Sorry, but my theological background is Presbyterian/Reformed, and the claim that such belief is 'fairly common' among Presbyterians is utter nonsense. The SDA make revival seem very tame in their comments. I don't think I'd be using the Seventh Day Adventists as an exemplar for orthodox Christian belief :) This is a group that was birthed during the failed 19th century American millenarian movement; a group that has it's own female version of the 'infallible' Lloyd Longfield (i.e. Ellen White); a group that has continually confused Old Testament law with New Testament grace; and a group that teaches that vegetarianism is God's preferred dietary plan! In short, and with respect to whatever you think the SDA teaches; so ... ?

I think you overstate the degree of difference. For example, what sets the overwhelming majority of Christian churches ... With respect I think this might be wishful thinking on your part. With equal respect, I consider it likely that I have had more to do with the 'overwhelming majority of Christian churches' than have you. Further, it's just as likely that I've a much better, broader and comprehensive understanding of the history, theology and practice of Christianity than do you. Consequently, I'm of the opinion that if there's any sort of 'wishful thinking' at play in this discussion, then it's on your part rather than mine :)

Another value of this forum is that when people do ignorantly make outlandish statements about this or that, those of us who are much better informed of the facts can rebut such nonsense, to everyone's benefit. I hope you are now a bit better informed. Of the feebleness of your position? Indeed I am :)

Blessings,

Ian

Have to agree with Ian re: Presbyterian position on the RC church. As a Presbyterian, and fellowshipping in several Prezy churches the Presbyterian church position is certainly not in total harmony with the RC church but certainly sees RC members as part of the body of Christ and our way to Salvation is the same, ie.saved through grace by Jesus Christ as the Bible says. I have never heard anything said against the RC church from the pulpit. I have heard ministry though be critical of revival churches and because of their twisted view of salvation, I believe most would see them as outside the body of Christ and we certainly see them as a weird religious sect. Many Presbyterian ministers are also aware of the damage revival churches have done to their members. There is nothing Christ like about Revival, and lets face it, if we rare to be followers of Christ, that is our calling.

Ian,

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the respect shown to pro-Revival people here. We'll also have to agree to disagree that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is correct because I'm not convinced you do it justice.

Mr Grits

Grits,

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the respect shown to pro-Revival people here. Okay. We'll also have to agree to disagree that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is correct because I'm not convinced you do it justice. Oh, I think we can do better than simply agreeing to disagree between ourselves. For example, you might like to provide me with the reasons why you disagree with me, thereby enabling the two of us to test the respective merits of each others' points-of-view ;)

How does that sound?

Blessings,

Ian